SXSW 2016 kicks off with cautionary tale about music streaming

It's streaming's world, and music lovers and music makers alike are merely living in it.

It was hand-wringing as usual as the annual Southwest Music Conference got rolling Tuesday, when a panel of industry insiders dove into the social context of a world in which the vast majority of music is distributed and consumed via a variety of subscription-based streaming platforms such as Spotify, Tidal and Beats. Meanwhile, 2,000 bands warmed up for showcases across this suddenly over-populated city. Road closings, traffic jams and streets clogged with badge-wearing conferencegoers are the rule of the week.

The same kind of congestion can be found on-line as streaming services compete for consumer dollars. Streaming services doubled their business in 2015 over the previous year, jumping to 317 billion streams, far surpassing any other form of music media.

Though the streaming services are replacing record companies, retail stores and even digital download outlets as the most efficient way to get music to consumers, they are no more artist-friendly than the old record companies were, warned digital executive Marisol Segal. "Their goal is to build sales, build a technology product, build a business," she said. "These services are ultimately structuring the way we're listening to music, but not in a way that is helping artists get their music heard."

There was a loose consensus centering on the idea of streaming as a potentially hugely beneficial example of technology's ability to widen music's reach, in the same way that the invention of the phonograph, radio, cassettes and compact discs once did. There are more people listening to a wider variety of music than ever before, and streaming has brought more bands to more people than ever, said tech researcher Jon Maples.

But is that a sign of growth or an example of commodification? Music presented without context gives no reason for the casual listener to invest in it, Segal said. The digital revolution of 1999-2000 offered the promise of creating a more direct and intimate relationship between artists and fans. But as researcher and journalist Kyle Bylin noted, no one has created a business model to facilitate that sort of interaction "in a meaningful way."

The artist was part of a panel discussing how corporations and even other artists (with deeper pockets) "appropriate" street art, from...

Music can now be accessed anywhere, anytime on smart phones, but the subtext of the streaming discussion suggested that this was more a triumph of commerce rather than of the art itself.

"If you're listening to music to help you vacuum, is that pulling value away from music?" Maples asked, only half-jokingly.

Let's face it, Bylin responded, "some music is better to vacuum to than others."

Segal wrapped a bow around this seemingly fanciful tangent with a comment that put the streaming debate in troubling context: "People look at music services like a commodity, like a vacuum cleaner or a washer. They (the streaming services) offer the same basic product with no real differences between them. They are interchangeable. The charm of a record store having a unique identity doesn't exist in the streaming world."

Music presented with charm, with context, with meaning that creates an emotional connection between fan and artist, not just a commercial one -- that sounds like the mission the next generation of music streaming services must embrace.